PDA

View Full Version : Inside Job



kotar44
11-04-2010, 02:45 PM
Has anyone seen this new documentary? Although somewhat cursory, and slightly forgiving to some of its contributors, it still is an excellent primer on the economic crisis we find ourselves in. It also shows just how foolish it is to fret over electing a Republican or Democrat...they are all bought by the same corporations. Plutocracy anyone?

brauneyz
11-04-2010, 02:49 PM
OK, we are in the OT again, right...? *whew*

Shoot 'em all and give anarchy a whirl!

Re: Your OP about the doc ... on TV, movie theaters, web ...? Gotta link? Never heard of it.

Pruitt
11-04-2010, 03:31 PM
Has anyone seen this new documentary? Although somewhat cursory, and slightly forgiving to some of its contributors, it still is an excellent primer on the economic crisis we find ourselves in. It also shows just how foolish it is to fret over electing a Republican or Democrat...they are all bought by the same corporations. Plutocracy anyone?

As an outsider looking in...

I think one of the major problems you face is that there are only two viable political parties in the States. It's a duopoly and it is really quite anti-democratic.

in Canada's House of Commons, 4 political parties and a couple of independents are represented. While only 2 of the parties have ever formed the government, the other parties are always around to keep the big two parties "honest". We also have a strictly regulated banking system that has kept our economy in decent shape.

One last point - with $4 billion spent on the mid-term elections, it is clear that the election industry is a growing concern in the U.S. A truly crazy situation even though it benefits all kinds of businesses (including the media which reaps a bi-annual winfall in election advertising money.

Enough ranting - I'm starting to sound Chomsky-esque.

kotar44
11-04-2010, 04:30 PM
We could all use a little Chomsky right about now...there are so many different ways to look at the flaws in our political system, we could spend all day. To address your points, there really is just 1 political party in this country now. The recent Supreme Court ruling allowing unlimited "soft" money into our political processes has just uncovered what has long been true, that large corporations and their lobbyists pay off both parties to ensure their will gets served no matter who wins. Our de-regulated banking system is a perfect example of this-started by Reagan, continued by Clinton, Bush and now Obama. Party affiliation is irrelevant. I'm also starting to see the genius for political consultants in brewing up this discontent every few years. Can it be coincidence that Clinton, Bush and now Obama have seen significant losses by their parties 2 years in? Who is making this happen? Me thinks the public is being hoodwinked by someone...

JTSticks
11-04-2010, 04:49 PM
As an outsider looking in...

I think one of the major problems you face is that there are only two viable political parties in the States. It's a duopoly and it is really quite anti-democratic.

in Canada's House of Commons, 4 political parties and a couple of independents are represented. While only 2 of the parties have ever formed the government, the other parties are always around to keep the big two parties "honest". We also have a strictly regulated banking system that has kept our economy in decent shape.

One last point - with $4 billion spent on the mid-term elections, it is clear that the election industry is a growing concern in the U.S. A truly crazy situation even though it benefits all kinds of businesses (including the media which reaps a bi-annual winfall in election advertising money.

Enough ranting - I'm starting to sound Chomsky-esque.

Just to clear it up for an outsider. The only place we are locked into two parties is the presidency (it is virtually impossible for any other party to win the presidency because of the rules), any other government office can be won by anyone, as long as you have th support to get on the ballot and then get elected. In ohio on this last election, there were 6 parties running a candidate for Governor and 5 for Senator, we have other parties, they just lack strength/support/money. Money is the overriding factor across the board

darvon
11-04-2010, 04:54 PM
Just to clear it up for an outsider. The only place we are locked into two parties is the presidency (it is virtually impossible for any other party to win the presidency because of the rules), any other government office can be won by anyone, as long as you have th support to get on the ballot and then get elected. In ohio on this last election, there were 6 parties running a candidate for Governor and 5 for Senator, we have other parties, they just lack strength/support/money. Money is the overriding factor across the board

I am going to take exception to that.

For federal office (Congress and Senate), the 3rd party in has no committee chair and minority chair power, and the committees rule the system. Therefore there is a huge disconnect in power between the 2nd and the 3rd party in congress, so nothing crystalizes around a 3rd party.

darvon
11-04-2010, 04:56 PM
The HUGE area for power for 3rd parties is Reforendums.

A system of National Reforendums would be a huge de-powerer of the 2 party system, thus is gonna be hard to get through the 2 party system.

In fact, it is suprising it has lasted this long in some states. If it weren't for the fact that one party gets to revoke reforendums in the court, I would guess they wouldn't still be around.

bluestree
11-04-2010, 06:14 PM
I am going to take exception to that.

For federal office (Congress and Senate), the 3rd party in has no committee chair and minority chair power, and the committees rule the system. Therefore there is a huge disconnect in power between the 2nd and the 3rd party in congress, so nothing crystalizes around a 3rd party.

Agreed. The only way to open up the system to the non co-opted is to change the primary system.

kotar44
11-04-2010, 07:24 PM
Here is the main problem: any changes to better the system have to be implemented by those currently in the system. The Congressmen(women) would have to vote against their own self-interests to change things up. I mean, look at the perks-gov't paycheck, access to almost unlimited funds from lobbying groups, and an almost guaranteed higher paying job available from said groups upon leaving the job...who would pass that up?